Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Blogtalk: The Lieberman Vote

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman once represented the left netroots’s first big victory, and its first big defeat once he won re-election in 2006.

Today’s decision by Senate Democrats to let the Democrat-turned-independent keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee has only further frustrated the liberal blogosphere’s quest for decisive triumph over the moderate who emphatically backed Senator John McCain’s White House bid. Word was that President-elect Barack Obama didn’t want Mr. Lieberman stripped of all his leadership duties, and so, many of the Connecticut senator’s foes found themselves foiled by efforts to stress bipartisanship.

“I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said during a press conference today. “But I also believe that if you look at the problems we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying, ‘Boy, did we get even.'” He later added, “I trust Senator Lieberman.”

Many on the leftward side of the blogosphere could probably accept Mr. Reid’s challenge, but they do not accept his assessment of the vote.

Jane Hamsher of firedoglake, one of the blogs most influential in Ned Lamont’s victory over Mr. Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic primary in Connecticut, says the decision today is “about telling you that you mean nothing.” She adds, “No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people protecting him hate you much more than they hate him.”

While some bloggers lamented merely what they deemed a “slap on the wrist” punishment, Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly’s Political Animal noted that Mr. Lieberman told reporters this afternoon that a rule change would prevent any senator from having more than one committee chair and one subcommittee chair, so his loss of the Environment and Public Works helm amounted to letting him “off the hook entirely.”

The reaction hints at a growing rift inside the party that is likely to extend beyond the Lieberman case, as liberals push to take advantage of what they see as a mandate. Several bloggers, including Ms. Hamsher, drew upon an anonymous quote from Chris Cillizza’s Washington Post blog:

Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: “The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question.”

It’s pretty odd that only two weeks after a landslide election that saw a huge ideological progressive mandate, Democratic congressional leaders think it’s a great public message to declare jihad on progressives.

I don’t know, call me crazy, but I think 67 million people voted for Democrats because they want Democrats to reject Bush’s ideological conservatism and solve problems – not spend their time making paranoid, quasi-McCarthy-ist speeches deriding “the Left.”

Many on the right are feeling a welcome bit of schadenfreude as they cope with their own electoral losses. At Commentary’s Contentions blog, Jennifer Rubin sneers, “Conservatives disappointed by defeat can take a measure of satisfaction in knowing that the Left is slowly realizing that it’s been had.”

But for other conservatives, the reconciliation was a painful reminder that Mr. Lieberman, more often than not, sides with the Democrats. “I really can’t listen to the video of his campaign regrets — from today’s post-vote presser — anymore,” writes Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review’s The Corner. Mr. Lieberman said during a press conference today:

The resolution expresses strong disapproval and rejection of statements that I made about Senator Obama during the campaign. And in that regard, I said very clear, some of the statements — some of the things that people have said I said about Senator Obama are simply not true.

There are other statements that I made that I wish I had made more clearly. And there are some that I made that I wish I had not made at all.

And, obviously, in the heat of campaigns, that happens to all of us, but I regret that. And now it’s time to move on.

Ms. Lopez continues, “Reminds me of when he returned a Wal-Mart check. Or couldn’t oppose partial-birth abortion.”

This is an absolute OUTRAGE! To allow a man who questioned the patriotism of the President elect to head the Homeland Security committee is absolutely unconscionable.

Lieberman even went so far as to say that it was an excellent question to ask if Barack Obama is a Marxist!?! If that is not enough to get him kicked off of the committee, what exactly would he have to do to lose the position? Join Al Qaeda?

The blogosphere needs to grow up and get over it. Sen. Lieberman may have disagreed with the Democratic party on presidential candidate, but the bottom line is he still agrees and votes with the caucus on the vast majority of issues and continues to have an incredible amount of clout in the Senate. Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security Committee makes the Senate AND the Democratic Caucus stronger. Time for the left to take President-elect Obama’s lead and act like adults. Being in power means it’s time to raise the level of discourse, not to become the vindictive bully the GOP majority once was.

Any liberal who is against Lieberman because of his support for McCain should be reprimanded by the democratic party. The democrats right now are promising a bipartisan Washington and in NO way should his support for McCain change that. As a diehard Obama supporter from the beginning, I believe removing Lieberman from his seat would be against Obama’s across-the-aisle message.

I think this is a bad decision, though I see the political reasoning behind it.

Lieberman has proved himself a turn-coat of the first order – what’s to say that, next time the wind turns, he won’t turn around and attack President-Elect Obama and betray the Democrats again? He’s not reliable.

Plus, as Chairman of Homeland Security Committee at the Senate, he’s been totally worthless. I live in Connecticut, had a problem with Immigration (which is now part of Homeland Security) – Lieberman’s office was totally uncaring and no help at all. The problem got resolved by our Congressman, Christopher Shays, who got voted out of office.

There really is no justice in this world, is there? Politics really are a dirty business, and I’m hopping mad.

I shall write a letter to the editor as soon as I have the time, to tell my whole 3 and 1/2 years battling bureaucracy, the CIS and Homeland Security. Lieberman definitely doesn’t deserve to lead that committee.

Kooks on the left like those that scribble on Daily kooks need to udenrstand (well they just cant given thier reatrd brain levels) that comraderie and friendships (like those within the Senate) go beyond Politics.

Joe is a ncie guy that most like and thus dont wanna avenge against him. Get a human brain, left wingers…LOL

Can someone bring me up to date on what old GOP Senators might be in Democratic Governor states, that I should pray for them dying in the short term, so the Democrats don’t need this treacherous man with no pride or shame they call Lieberman.

This is a disgrace and the democratic senators should be ashamed !!!
This is not about coalition building and getting legislation passed, this is about friendship, CLUB atmosphere put before voter intent and the party’s agenda…
Lieberman a fear mongering, civil liberty crushing republican…His only loyalty seems to be toward ISRAEL ( a narrow and religious conservative view of ISRAEL interests that is more aligned with Sharon than Perez….) and to that effect he is ready to forge any alliance to advance his personal agenda.
Not only has he been a war bigot, but he has used the most outrageous tactics to get President elect OBAMA defeated, resorting to Ayers and other non-sense.
It is fair to say we turn the page after elections, but rewarding outrageous behavior tell the democratic voters, we do not care about what you think !!!
Let every democratic voter withold his material support from the DSCC. If they put their friendship before our concerns, why should we support them …
Rather have a moderate rep[ublican like Shays than a snaky democrat like Lieberman…
DO NOT FUND the DSCC !!!

This is without any doubt whatsoever, absolutely disgusting. First of all I feel totally cheated. I would not have voted for Barack Obama had I not been badgered for weeks on end by my wife. She has unfortunately drank far to much of the Obama-Aid. I told her I was tired of voting because the Democrats always find a way to let me down on things that matter a great deal to me. My vote for Obama this year wasn’t a vote for him, it was a vote against Mccain.

So the first chance the new Democratic leader of this country gets to make a choice to really make change, he might as well be George W. Bush. BTW, my wife just called to tell me how sorry she was for making me do something I didn’t want to do. She also now feels jilted by Obama and sees no change whatsoever. She sees exactly what I see, the democrats bending over for special interests.

Of course if Joe LIEberman wasn’t attached to the hip of AIPAC, he would be out on his ass right now. But since AIPAC shows a great deal of influence over what Obama and apparently all of the other cowards who voted to keep LIEberman in his chair position, people who really want change can bend over and act as if it really isn’t painful.

I already knew that Obama and the rest of the Demo’s would conduct business as usual, so I wasn’t hyped up by his victory in the least bit. As a proud liberal I just hoped that maybe after hearing change over and over again he would at least attempt to be different. I told my wife this is exactly what would happen.

Why should anybody think that Barack Obama, who was not one of the 13 to vote against nominating Condoleeza Rice would do anything different than the Republicrat usual? Barack Obama is a man who refused to take a picture during his campaign with the Mayor of San Francisco because he was worried that rednecks might see him as someone who sees gays as human beings. A man who is obviously in the pocket of banking because he refused to vote in order to put a 30% ceiling in interest they could charge. Need I mention FISA, the patriot act, ect., ect., ect.

All those who wanted change saw a precursor of what is to come today. The same old BS that we have been putting up with for years. If you don’t have the backbone to stand up to special interests to the point that youre groveling at the feet of a piece of crap like LIEberman, how in the hell are you really going to help people who you promised change too? LIEberman, a guy who stood behind Palin over and over while she said you were “Pallin around with terrorists,” is a guy who should be the chairman of Homeland Security?

Joe LIEberman shouldn’t have been demoted because he is Judas 2K, he should be demoted because everything Barack Obama stood for in his campaign he was against. LIEberman is a chickenhawk extroadinaire.

If there is change going on in the Obama administration to come, we are all going to need Hubbel telescopes to see it. Today showed us all that it will be business as usual. The shameful part of this LIEberman garbage that went down today is the cowardly senators that voted for that jackass will all use the cover of Barack Obama to explain why they did it.

I called every senators office to ask them to strip his chairmanship away. I am sure I am not the only one who felt that way. But as usual, it isn’t about the citizens of this country, its about the old boys network that runs it and what they can do for themselves.

The political calculus of retaining Lieberman escapes this voter and blogger completely. In the Senate, just like in corporate executive suites, relationships matter more than anything else. When one breaches trust in relationships, one is generally shot, gutted and abandoned…the exception being when there is too much to lose by doing so.

So let me get this straight: with a fresh new majority of Democrats in the Senate, it was deemed wise to keep Lieberman in order to – maybe – reach supermajority status?? …when Lieberman has graphically demonstrated his disloyalty and unreliability?? …when it’s unknown just what he may be saying to buddy McCain and the Republican caucus out of the other side of his mouth???

Wow. Democrats have always appeared feeble during the Bush years. Now, despite Obama, that has not changed.

Joe Lieberman deserves much more of a “punishment” than this. It is one thing to disagree with your party, another to undermine and sabotage it. Which he did. Worse still is his support of a man so profoundly and obviously wrong for the job of president.

Joe Lieberman has always been brutally selfserving. With McCain he has made a calculated and ultimately successful gamble. Why wouldn’t he do it again? Men of his ilk will do it every time. Watch your backs, Democrats, Joe Lieberman is not done with you yet.

Let’s not go overboard here: As one of those liberal-blog-reading types who was disappointed over the caucus’ ineffectual treatment of Lieberman today, I honestly don’t feel betrayed or anything so hyperbolic. I grant that Lieberman’s slap on the wrist falls into Obama’s larger and more potent strategy of post-partisan coalition-building. By forgiving the slanders festooned upon him by the likes of Lieberman, Clinton, and McCain throughout this long election season, Obama is showing his sincere effort to bring liberals, independents, and moderate Republicans into the fold. If the strategy pays off, we should have a more functional and effective government, a less strident political dialogue, and a further isolation of the right-wing dead-enders who are driving the Republican Party into the margins of “true” conservatism.

So while today’s decision was a bitter letdown, I suspect the voters of Connecticut will not be so charitable next time around.

I too think it a big mistake once again by the current Democrats to betray their constituents. Joe Lieberman has committed untold number of dastardly recommendations that have gone to undermine the efforts of Democrats in Congress for years now. “Looking forward” has become the new mealy mouthed way of dealing with unpleasant reality. I am disgusted myself with this group of Democratic congressmen. Mr. Lieberman is not one “across” the aisle, he is in the middle of the aisle and cannot be trusted to do anything but support the Republican efforts. Anything Americans can do to get rid of Mr. Lieberman won’t be soon enough far as I am concerned and get rid of these lame Democrats as well.

What is this crap about turncoats? All of these people angry at Lieberman don’t get it. Are Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney their role models for how to play politics?

Hey you folks out on the left – it’s the people in the middle who decide elections! If you want them to think that the principles of ideological purity of the Republican party are what drive the Democratic Party, get ready to lose again – soon!

Grow up and get over it – President-elect Obama has. Did you think he was lying about a spirit of bipartisanship to get elected so he could then enact a program approved by moveon?

Personally, I don’t like the vicious methods of Michell Malkin, Matt Drudge, and Anne Coulter – even when they are used by people with whom I agree.

If President Obama and the Senate leadership are going to get his programs passed into law, they may need Joe Lieberman. We won – let’s, as they say, move on.

Those who make the argument that Lieberman should stay on the premise that it shows Democrats are willing to reach across the aisle fail to understand that Lieberman is on the Democrat’s side of the aisle. It is not synonymous witht reaching across the aisle to appoint a Republican. This amounts to appointing a traitor. Anyone who believes that this is good policy – either in the short or long term are dead wrong.

I think there’s a difference between revenge and reasonable consequences. It would be reasonable to assume that Lieberman should have his chairmanship taken from him, because he worked against the Democrats. However, until we can elect 60 true Democrats to the senate we’ll have to put up with him. Unfortunately.

It’s called reconciliation, folks. Do you have a clue what Lincoln did with those who had trashed him? He got over it. We’re expecting Republicans to get over their crazed fears of Obama,….and then proceed to go out and be as vengeful as they have been. Obama will work hard at being less vengeful, and keep the far bigger goals in view than feeling good about trashing someone who trashed you.

In the overall scheme of Washington politics, Lieberman is an inconsequential man. If President-elect Obama chooses to be magnanimous in his treatment of Lieberman, so be it. Possible future benefits are Lieberman’s vote on key bills and John McCain’s support. Besides, the voters of Connecticut will deal with Lieberman in due course.

I am much more concerned about the possible appointment as secretary of state of Hillary Clinton, whose foreign policy qualifications are bogus. Would the benefits of appointing someone with her own political agenda and negatives in the high 40s outweigh the political costs? Is she really prepared to loyally implement Barack Obama’s foreign policy? If not, how severe will the political consequences be when he fires her?

What ever happened to accountability? Sen. Howdy Doody betrays his party and Conn. voters and would see hawkish McCain and demagogue Palin lead Ameica–and for this he gets rewarded? Next time I vote 3rd party!

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…